Department/Program Review
Self-Study Report
2011 - 2012
Department: ENGLISH
Program: Liberal Arts, Communication & Social Sciences
Section I: Overview of Department
A.
Mission of the department and its programs(s)
What is the purpose of the department and its programs? What publics does the
department serve through its instructional programs? What positive changes in
students, the community and/or disciplines/professions is the department striving to
effect?
The primary mission of the English Department is to promote literacy,
including technological literacy. Literacy—reading, writing, and critical
thinking—enriches personal lives; helps students become responsible,
contributing members of a democracy; increases both self-expression and
the understanding of others in a global society; and encourages life-long
learning. Literacy skills are essential and teachable. They undergird all the
academic disciplines and are highly valued by employers.
Since active participation is critical to student learning, the department
highly encourages faculty to design learning activities to establish a
community of writers in composition, creative writing, literature, and
business communication classes by using pedagogical methods that
encourage teamwork and connections to the community at large.
The English Department encourages faculty to use both traditional and
contemporary teaching methods and modern technology to prepare
students for career success in the twenty-first century. Students leave our
writing and literature classes with improved literacy skills that help them
reach their personal and professional goals. We also provide opportunities
for continuing education to members of our community.
B.
Description of the self-study process
Briefly describe the process the department followed to examine its status and
prepare for this review. What were the strengths of the process, and what would
the department do differently in its next five-year review?
1. During Fall Quarter 2011, full-time faculty members met to discuss
the review process and begin brainstorming answers to department
review questions. The chair explained the process and timeline.
2. During Winter Quarter 2012, faculty members were appointed to
lead teams of faculty to compile information and gather data for
sections of the report, including the environmental scan. A timeline
for drafting was established.
2
3. Once that information was collected, the faculty team leaders
collaborated to compile the information from the faculty at large,
analyze the data, and draft the final document. Team leaders
conducted intensive revisions at this stage.
4. The self-study document was made available to all faculty and
revised according to faculty comments in late February.
5. Finally, the team leads completed the document in accordance with
the Department Review Manual.
A strength of the process was the involvement of all full-time faculty. In the
next five-year review, faculty will be better prepared to report on the
outcomes of recommendations from this review. The recommendations
generated from this review will be revisited and assessed each year to
ensure the department is addressing the concerns of its stakeholders. In
the next review, the department will target greater participation from
adjunct instructors.
Section II: Overview of Program
A.
Analysis of environmental factors
This analysis, initially developed in a collaborative meeting between the Director of
Curriculum and Assessment and the department chairperson, provides important
background on the environmental factors surrounding the program. Department
chairpersons and faculty members have an opportunity to revise and refine the
analysis as part of the self-study process.
 The English Department influences three major stakeholders:
o Students (entering students, transfer students, and dually enrolled
students).
o College programs that require one or more of the English
Composition courses.
o Transfer institutions who represent the direct external stakeholders
for our department. (Indirectly, the English Department
considers industry employers as stakeholders.)
 Meeting stakeholder needs is an area where data has not been
collected. Feedback from the department is qualitative.
 Two of the biggest challenges revolve around human resources and
classroom scheduling.
 The opportunities that exist include increasing retention, building
stronger composition curricula, promoting courses, and communicating
with internal and external stakeholders.
 Data collection has centered on collecting course failure information and
completion rates.
 Data could inform the department about student withdrawals, strengths
and weaknesses in instruction and curriculum, and the influence of
tutoring.
3
B.
Statement of program learning outcomes and linkage to courses
Include the program outcomes for each program(s) in Section V.
Learning Outcome
Critical Thinking/Problem
Solving
Global Awareness
Group Participation, Social
Interaction
Professional Effectiveness
Communication
Literary Literacy
Literary Themes and
Devices
C.
Related Courses
ENG 111, 112, 113, 250, 131, 116, 199, 245, 256,
255, 257, 258, 249, 247
LIT 234, 236, 217, 267; ENG 245, 247
ENG 111, 112, 113, 199, 255, 256, 258, 259
ENG 131, 199, 257, 116
ENG 111, 112, 113, 131, 199, 257
ENG 113; LIT 201, 202, 205, 227, 211, 212, 230,
205, 240
ENG 113; LIT 201, 202, 205, 227, 211, 212, 230,
205, 240
Admission requirements
List any admission requirements specific to the department/program. How well have
these requirements served the goals of the department/program? Are any changes
in these requirements anticipated? If so, what is the rationale for these changes?
Pre-requisites for ENG111 are DEV 064 and DEV 110 or the equivalent
via placement testing. ENG 112 requires ENG 111 and DEV 065 or the
equivalent via placement testing. The pre-requisite for Business
Communication courses is DEV 110. In addition, LIT 230 requires ENG
113; LIT 240 requires ENG 111.
There are no changes being proposed at this time.
Section III: Student Learning
A.
Evidence of student mastery of general education competencies
What evidence does the department/program have regarding students’ proficiency
in general education competencies? Based on this evidence, how well are students
mastering and applying general education competencies in the program?
Written Communication – Students apply the stages of the writing
process (pre-writing, drafting, revising, and editing) in all assignments in
the composition sequence, as well as in essays and other writing
assignments assigned in the literature, business writing, and creative
writing courses. Knowledge of both audience and conventions
(paragraphing, mechanics, format, syntax, grammar) are required
competencies for the composition sequence. Writing skills are
emphasized and measured before students achieve a passing grade in all
department courses. Students with below college-level writing skills are
encouraged to seek assistance through the writing lab on campus or
individual tutoring.
4
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving – Students in English courses
demonstrate critical thinking/problem solving through a variety of course
requirements, both inside and outside of the classroom. Students raise
relevant questions, articulate ideas or problems, use appropriate problemsolving methods, exhibit openness to alternative ideas, demonstrate
analysis of information to support a chosen position with attention to
consequences, and organize observable data into useful formats. These
applications require students to demonstrate strategies and
comprehension of argumentative concepts and apply those strategies to
specific situations. Critical thinking/problem solving are woven into all ENG
and LIT courses so that students are continually assessed in this area.
The intangible and irreplaceable benefits of LIT courses include wisdom,
sensitivity, appreciation for beauty, zest for living, compassion, etc. While
hard to measure, these qualities embody life-long learners. Students who
do successfully complete the composition sequence must have
demonstrated this competency in order to achieve a passing grade.
Values/Citizenship/Community – Responsible and ethical writing
requires students to consider the issues of values, community, and
citizenship. As a member of a classroom writing community, students are
required to participate and contribute to their communities. In addition,
many ENG sections integrate service-learning projects into the curriculum
and follow those with meaningful reflection about citizenship. In English,
literature, and business communication courses, the department expects
students to exhibit behavior congruent with policies contained in the
Sinclair Student Handbook and Sinclair Honor Code, demonstrate honesty
in a variety of contexts, respect the rights of others, and demonstrate
respect for diverse cultures. Again, the criteria forming the English
Department grading standards measure this competency.
Computer Literacy – Students are required to demonstrate computer
literacy, as most documents for grading are word-processed. Students are
encouraged to bring flash drives and to use the Angel portal for course
information and communication. Furthermore, courses introduce the use
of electronic research tools including search engines, meta-search
engines and virtual libraries. In addition, the use of the Turn-it-In software
as an instructional tool enables faculty to assess student understanding of
ethical use of sources. Librarians provide instruction in using the
databases and library online resources each quarter, and students are
encouraged to publish their texts on blogs and other electronic media.
Information Literacy – As students compose argumentative texts in the
cornerstone courses of ENG 111 and 112, they are required to identify
and evaluate information for credibility and origin. At this time, ENG 112
incorporates instruction on ethical documentation; however, after the
semester conversion, ENG 1101 and 1201 will incorporate this instruction.
5
It is expected that students in higher-level composition, literature, and
business writing courses will be able to research for those courses and
apply appropriate documentation styles. Students develop investigative
methods; access information using library resources, electronic resources
and/or field resources; analyze information; organize information; and
ethically use information. The English Department’s statement on
plagiarism offers a guideline for students when determining how to
adequately cite sources. Information literacy is assessed throughout the
composition sequence via essays incorporating research and the English
department grading standards.
B.
Evidence of student achievement in the learning outcomes for the
program
What evidence does the department/program have regarding students’ proficiency
in the learning outcomes for the program? Based on this evidence, how well are
students mastering and applying the learning outcomes? Based on the
department’s self-study, are there any planned changes in program learning
outcomes?
An English Department Grading Scale is distributed to all faculty and used
widely to assess how students are meeting requirements before they pass
composition courses.
In an effort to gauge proficiency in student learning outcomes (SLOs), the
English Department initiated the evaluation of student writing in 2007 by
collecting student essays and designing an assessment model. In 2008,
the department faculty completed a computerized assessment of the
samples and data was tabulated and disseminated in 2009. The full report
was published in Musings, the department newsletter, Winter 2010. This
outcome assessment showed areas of strength and weakness in student
writing.
The English Department’s Assessment Team compiled sample essays
from all sections of English 111 and designed a survey instrument to
assess whether students were meeting course outcomes. Grade norming
workshops were held at the 2007 in-service and a department meeting to
ensure that the instructors’ assignments and expectations were aligned to
course goals. Full and part-time faculty attended a conference in 2010 on
English composition and provided feedback on an online tool that has
potential for larger scale program assessment. At the same conference,
faculty also collaborated with professors from colleges and universities all
over the country about ways to improve program assessment.
Another example of the department’s efforts to assess the level of student
proficiency are faculty participation as judges of student writing in the
annual Spectrum Awards and Creative Writing Contest. Each quarter,
students are nominated to receive the award and their essays are judged
and discussed by faculty. These activities allow our faculty to collaborate
6
on establishing a common definition of excellence in writing.
Finally, continuous improvements to our assessment of student writing
was proposed and approved in May 2011. The assessment model is
similar to that of Valencia and Henry Ford. The pilot is set for April 2012
with six faculty contributing final papers from their Winter 2012 ENG111
sections. There will be a blind review by three other faculty members. The
process and results will inform the future assessment procedures.
C.
Evidence of student demand for the program
How has/is student demand for the program changing? Why? Should the
department take steps to increase the demand? Decrease the demand? Eliminate
the program? What is the likely future demand for this program and why?
English Composition courses have among the highest enrollments in the
college. The following chart shows a comparison of 2006 and 2011 for
ENG 111, 112, and 113 enrollments. Overall, the enrollment for these
three general education courses rose by 43.87%. This information was
extracted from the DAWN Portal RAR reports on February 13, 2012.
ENG111, 112, and 113 Enrollments for 2006 and 2011
Term
2006 Enrollment 2011 Enrollment Enrollment
Change %
ENG111 4688
7191
53.39
ENG112 4041
5724
41.65
ENG113 1746
2155
23.42
Total
10,475
15,070
43.87
ENG131: Business Communication I had a 32.71% increase in
enrollment while ENG132: Business Communications II had a 23.48%
drop in enrollment. LIT courses are holding steady.
Essentially, student demand for our program continues to grow and is
parallel to the college’s enrollment. Future demand is likely to exist as long
as our curriculum reflects the needs of students, transfer institutions, and
employers.
D.
Evidence of program quality from external sources (e.g., advisory
committees, accrediting agencies, etc.)
What evidence does the department have about evaluations or perceptions of
department/program quality from sources outside the department? In addition to
off-campus sources, include perceptions of quality by other departments/programs
on campus where those departments are consumers of the instruction offered by
the department.
Students are our primary stakeholders. When comparing the Fall 2011
End of Course Student Survey Rating Results of the English Department
7
to the College results, the positive approval rating (above neutral) for the
English department was 87% and the College was 88.5%. The two areas
where the English department falls below the College average is
“…feedback that enabled me to increase my learning,” and “…related
course content to real-world situations.” For further evidence of student
success as an indicator of quality, see Appendix 4.
Transfer universities are another important stakeholder. Our English
Composition courses and LIT courses transfer with few restrictions to
colleges and universities thanks to the Ohio Transfer Module and AA/AS
degree. Major Ohio universities have published guides for transfer
students coming from Sinclair. These guides accept all of our English
Composition courses without any restrictions or additional requirements.
In addition, our Literature TAG courses transfer successfully for English
majors across the state.
The degree and certificate programs of the college are also important
stakeholders. Faculty representing different departments were surveyed to
determine the effectiveness of English Department courses as students
progress into their core courses for their majors. For further evidence, see
Appendix 2.
E.
Evidence of the placement/transfer of graduates
What evidence does the department/program have regarding the extent to which its
students transfer to other institutions? How well do students from the
department/program perform once they have transferred? What evidence does the
department have regarding the rate of employment of its graduates? How well do
the graduates perform once employed?
Neither the English Department nor Sinclair Community College has the
means to track our majors upon graduation. While the college does track
some majors in more technical fields, the tracking of non-technical majors
is not currently conducted.
The department follows the guidelines established for transfer assurance.
The department has developed and maintained strong working
relationships with the region’s four-year institutions. The college and the
department’s high educational standards ensure that students experience
seamless transfer for continuing education. The primary indicator of
student achievement for the department is transferability to a four-year
institution.
Although there are no formal processes in place to follow students after
graduation, anecdotal evidence suggests that students successfully
transfer to these institutions. Sinclair’s “Right to Know” data suggests that
19.6% transfer each year and as many as 72.5% are eligible to transfer
courses. Sinclair graduates have successfully sought employment in
various careers because English composition is a general education
8
requirement for all degree-seeking students. Students from a variety of
disciplines are engaged in our writing and literature courses.
F.
Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of the department/program
How does the department/program characterize its cost-effectiveness? What would
enhance the cost-effectiveness of the department/program? Are there
considerations in the cost-effectiveness of the department/program that are unique
to the discipline or its methods of instruction?
Office of Budget and Analysis Chart from February 3, 2012
Comparative: “Cost per FTE” from FY2007-08 to the present has
consistently shown that the cost per FTE is lower for the English
Department in comparision to the division average and has
decreased.
Table 1: Cost FY
per FTE
200708
Actual
Department
$ 2,935
Division
$ 3,178
FY
200809
Actual
$ 2,845
$ 3,032
FY
200910
Actual
$ 2,672
$ 2,780
FY
201011
Actual
$ 2,766
$ 2,891
FY 2011- FY07 –
12
FY12
Projected Change
$ 2,798
$2,919
-1.2%
-2.1%
The ratio of FT to PT is 52% to 48%, which represents a 5.1% increase in
FT since FY2008 due to three additional ACF positions and a larger
workload for adjuncts and FT. The FTE per FT faculty has increased to 47
from 42 in FY2008. The reassigned hours have not changed from FY2008
to FY2012.
Section IV: Department/Program Status and Goals
A.
List the department’s/program’s strengths, weaknesses and
opportunities
Strengths:
 ENG and LIT courses provide a strong basis in writing and/or reading
strategies and skills, which prepare students for both academic and
career-based writing and reading.
 Under English Department leadership, the Writing Center serves over
5,000 students per quarter.
 The ENG and LIT courses align with Gen Ed requirements, state
TAGs, and successfully transfer to area colleges.
 The Creative Writing course sequence is diverse and extensive. It
draws students who otherwise might not take classes at Sinclair.
 Faculty have strong awareness of current theoretical and research
developments in the field, including trends in teaching pedagogies,
technology, and student engagement.
 Faculty have excellent participation in professional organizations and
9



have high publication rates.
Faculty are involved in all areas of the college and the community,
including our annual Spectrum Awards for Excellence in Student
Writing, Writers’ Workshop, and various community writing activities
and contest judging. See Appendix 1.
The English Department publishes Flights, a literary journal that
provides professional-level publication opportunities and exposure to
both students and area residents. In addition, The 3six5 Sinclair daily
blog encourages writing from the entire Sinclair community.
For additional information on faculty, see Appendix 3.
Weaknesses:
 Department has heavy reliance on adjunct instruction in the
composition sequence, yet support and training for adjuncts is minimal
at best. A strong mentoring program is needed.
 Department-wide communication and follow through is weak.
 Workload, resources, and communication are not evenly spread.
 Secretarial support and administrative structure is inefficient in part due
to the size of the department.
 Class sizes continue to grow; Sinclair’s composition courses have the
highest caps in the state of Ohio, which negatively impacts success
rates and the ability of sections to be placed into computer labs.
 Current quarter composition courses lack strong connections to DEV
courses.
 Based on the RAR reports extracted on February 13, 2012, the success rate

in composition dropped by 1.9% when comparing 2006 to 2011 while
Business Communication dropped 1.6%. The retention strategies advocated
by the department have not impacted these success rates. In evaluating the
RAR data, some instructors have a completion rate of 60% or less on a
continual basis; however, little work has been done to address this problem.
The department does not look at student evaluations as a whole when
making decisions about workshops, in-services, and meetings.
Opportunities:
 Establish an improvement plan for faculty with poor success rates in
ENG 111 and 112.
 Develop stronger linkages with area K-12 programs and ACA
Department.
 Utilize student evaluations to inform global weaknesses.
 Investigate how the curriculum of our Business Communications
courses align with other schools and how it meets the needs of the
courses it feeds.
 Investigate and implement positive changes in Writing Center (tutor
training, coordination between tutors and teachers, productive reenvisioning of Writing Center).
 Align and coordinate with area high schools.
10







B.
Consistently publish Department Newsletter, Musings, to increase
communication in department.
Develop advisory board for composition.
Ramp up adjunct training – revise Adjunct Faculty Handbook for
department.
Address secretarial staffing and training needs.
Ensure that department workload, resources, and communication are
fairly spread among all eligible faculty.
Improve communication between faculty and departments through
publicizing our successes through avenues like the LCS newsletter,
etc.
Consolidate composition coordination for the department into one
position.
Describe the status of the department’s/program’s work on any issues
or recommendations that surfaced in the last department review.
At the last department review in 2005, the department was asked to
explore avenues to offer additional sections of ENG 111 and 112 to meet
enrollment demands. To do this, the department has continually added
distance learning sections and increased the number of sections and
times offered as suggested by student survey data.
The next recommendation asked the department to consider a formal
approach to data gathering and analysis, focusing on direct measures of
student learning. To address this issue, in 2007 we began collecting data
from students who dropped ENG 111 via an online point-of-service
survey. Factors external to Sinclair that affect students’ ability to
successfully complete our courses were the biggest contributor to course
withdrawal. Also, in 2010, faculty completed an F-Rationale Form that
enabled the department to track when and how students received failing
grades in ENG 111 – and encourage the use of the Early Alert system.
Results were the same as the 2007 study. This form has been revised to
directly connect withdrawals to the curriculum sequence of assignments,
indicating where weak links in curriculum remain. In conjunction with this
recommendation, we were asked to utilize common assessment tools to
measure course outcomes in high-enrollment courses. As mentioned in
other parts of this report, we have had grade-norming sessions, improved
student learning outcome assessment, and common course tools.
The need for updated master syllabi was noted at the last department
review. Since that time, every master syllabus in the English Department
has undergone an extensive revision and alignment to state standards.
We have moved to a common text for all sections of the composition
series, common grading standards, and a common syllabus template in
order to align each section of composition.
11
Evidence of continued collaboration with ACA to support student transition
from DEV to college-level English includes DEV 297, an accelerated
composition course taught by ENG 111 and DEV 110 instructors. Faculty
continue to collaborate in Learning Challenge Grants and other college
initiatives (Revolutionary Grammar, WritePlacer Pilot, WAC workshops,
combined in-services). An exclusive track for English and ACA adjuncts
has been designed through the CTL called Student Engagement. These
adjunct faculty will complete six workshops on the topic.
Another recommendation from the 2005 review was to improve and
document the success of the mentoring process for adjunct faculty. While
the department has increased mentoring and coupled it with an adjunct
faculty handbook, this area still needs work. However, the majority of
English Department adjuncts have completed the CTL Adjunct
Certification Course.
One of the recommendations centered on containing costs. As noted in
Section III, Part F, the cost per FTE has dropped by 1.2% over the last five
fiscal years. The FTE per FT faculty has increased to 47 from 42 in
FY2008. The reassigned hours have not changed from FY2008 to
FY2012.
As noted in other parts of this report, internal communications in the
department to ensure common understanding of activities and college
support is still a weakness. While the English Department does publish
Musings, a newsletter, its publication is irregular. The department intends
to continue to work on this recommendation and explore other avenues,
such as regular department meetings, to strengthen internal
communication.
Exploring possible curricular strategies to improve student success in
ENG 112 has been addressed through regular course scheduling of 112 in
computer labs; library orientations with the English Department liason,
Debra Oswald; new units on 21st century literacies; and online course
enhancements. While the success rate in 112 has not substantially
improved, the areas of weakness in the course have been identified and
addressed through the revision of 112 into the semester version, 1201.
Finally, based on the 2005 recommendation to pilot plagiarism software,
during the spring and summer of 2008 the English Department piloted
Turnitin. Faculty input was compiled and in cooperation with the IT
Department, a proposal was submitted to the Provost recommending to
adopt Turnitin. Although that proposal was turned down due to funding,
the department was able to negotiate the inclusion of a Turnitin license
with our common ENG 111/ENG 112 text. This license enables the use of
Turnitin in all English courses through the Angel shell.
12
C.
Based on feedback from environmental scans, community needs
assessment, advisory committees, accrediting agencies, Student
Services, and other sources external to the department, how well is
the department responding to the (1) current and (2) emerging needs
of the community? The college?
Overall, our department is responding well to the increasing demands for
instruction in composition. The demand for Creative Writing and Literature
courses remains stable, and Business Communications courses maintain
a high enrollment as well. To meet these demands, the department has
increased the number of sections offered on satellite and regional
campuses of the college while maintaining quality instruction at the main
Sinclair campus.
College departments have identified and expressed concern about a
disconnect in course sequences due to prerequisites. They have also
vocalized a need for need for career-specific writing, which the English
Department is taking under advisement. However, composition courses
meet the new state and Gen Ed outcomes, not field-specific outcomes. It
is our contention that the writing projects and skills developed in our
composition courses prepare students for a wide variety of writing tasks
including academic writing needed at the university level, and that narrow,
career-specific writing instruction is not in the students’ best interest.
However, it would benefit the college as a whole to learn more about the
national and state guidelines for teaching English composition.
D.
List noteworthy innovations in instruction, curriculum and student
learning over the last five years
The following list represents a sampling of innovations within the ENG
Department over the last five years (for a more complete list of
innovations, please see Appendix 1):
1. Developing an Accelerated English course (DEV 297 paired with
ENG 111). Students who score between 82-87 on the Accuplacer
test qualify to take this course. This format is both fast-paced and
self-paced while requiring students to meet weekly deadlines. As
stated in the DEI Report, "Student success rates remained relatively
unchanged in Accelerated English courses. Data suggests that in
Fall 2011, 71.9% of students enrolled in the ACA-297 (DEV-110)
course succeeded and that 67.2% succeeded in the co-enrolled
ENG-111 course."
2. Developing diversity and literacy-promoting experiences, including
The Dayton Literary Peace Prize, Writer-in-Residence at the
13
Dayton Art Institute, the Miami Valley Big Read, the annual Multicultural series and our own Annual Writers’ Workshop. There has
been a tremendous effort to reach diverse student populations with
in and out-of-class strategies, including CTL/diversity work, UUAMP
mentoring, and leading book discussions of teaching strategies.
3. Using and experimenting with current technology, including the use
of social networking, audio files for assessment of writing, wikis,
iPads, blogging, texting, Internet modules, and extensive use of
traditional media in the classroom. In addition, faculty actively use
Angel to provide greater access and opportunities for learning, and
developed the Ask an English Professor online interface which
allows students to receive timely answers to questions.
4. Developing new courses and modules, including Introduction to
Literature, which will meet a TAG requirement and fill a gap left by
semester conversion, and an ecological literacy module for the
composition curriculum.
5. Using service learning as a primary pedagogy in various sections of
ENG and LIT courses. Partners include the Honor Flight Program,
Hospice of Dayton, Children’s Hunger Alliance, Kettering Medical
Center, Partners in Community Living as well as area schools.
Also, being a major partner in the Learning Communities across all
divisions and embracing this style of learning.
Writing Center Innovations:
1. Developing an electronic tracking form that enables Writing Center
tutors to immediately notify faculty of student Writing Center use
and areas of weakness.
2. Reworking and updating the Writing Center website.
3. Implementing a new system for keeping statistics via the Tutor
Tracking Form. More detailed statistics are now kept on those who
are using the center for computer use and one-on-one tutoring.
Also, students can now submit a comment on their level
of satisfaction with their tutoring session.
4. Hiring a tutor who has some expertise in ESL.
E.
What are the department’s/program’s goals and rationale for
expanding and improving student learning, including new courses,
programs, delivery formats and locations?
The department’s goals and rationale for expanding include continuing to
offer sections of composition at all locations and at all times (including
14
WPAFB, Courseview, Englewood and Huber Heights Learning Centers,
Centerville High School, etc.). We plan to explore new courses after we
convert to semesters, including a class on writing/publishing in the
electronic media. We plan to continue to modernize our curriculum to
serve students as they transfer and graduate in greater numbers.
The department is working through the AQIP initiative to build stronger
connections with ACA and area high schools. In the next five years, we
plan to establish a stronger assessment program for students and faculty
by exploring e-Portfolios and routine assessment norming for faculty.
Finally, we plan to take action on the “opportunities” list presented earlier
in this report.
F.
What are the department’s goals and rationale for reallocating
resources? Discontinuing courses?
Department goals and rationale for reallocating resources and
discontinuing courses align with the conversion process in which we
eliminated 12 courses. After the semester conversion, the department will
continue to monitor the enrollment in LIT and ENG courses to maintain an
acceptable number of offerings in an effort to be responsible stewards of
the college while meeting the needs of students and stakeholders.
G.
What resources and other assistance are needed to accomplish the
department’s/program’s goals?
Human Resources:
1. Restructuring the department would be of benefit because of the
43.87% increase in English composition enrollments. Adding a
designated director of writing programs in order to ensure both the
quality of instruction and student success is warranted. Given the
importance that the college has placed on success in our
composition series and the size of our department, an additional
administrator is needed in order to manage adjunct instruction and
ensure that learning outcomes are met consistently.
2. We need to increase tutoring offerings in the Writing Center.
Establish a process to require students to get tutoring if faculty or
placement scores recommend it.
3. We need to increase our full-time, tenure-track faculty ranks. Our
department teaches more sections than others with fewer ACFs
and fewer tenured/tenure-track faculty. Our recent 5.1% increase in
full-time faculty is due to additional ACF positions, which now stand
at five, non-tenure-track positions.
4. We need additional or improved office/administrative staffing to
meet the demands of a growing student body and faculty.
Material Resources:
1. An increase in funding for faculty/staff training is needed in order to
better meet high standards of instruction.
15
2. The department needs assistance or devoted time for statistical
analysis, assessment programs, and data collection. Technical
support, resources and funding are needed for aggregating writing
samples, as well.
3. In order to better communicate with adjuncts and colleagues in our
department, a conference room or other space for collaboration and
mentoring among faculty is essential.
Program Resources:
1. We need to provide input to improve the placement test to more
accurately place students in composition courses. (Currently, the
WritePlacer is being piloted to address this concern.)
2. We need to develop a plan or program to help students who have
passed through the ACA courses but still aren't ready for English
111.
3. We need to investigate developing an in-house common reader/text
for the composition sequence to lower textbook costs for students.
16
Section V: Appendices: Supporting Documentation
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Table of Contents
Additional Notable Work
Course Effectiveness Testimonials
English Department Faculty
Former and Current Students
page 16
page 17
page 18
page 21
1. Additional Notable Work, Accomplishments, and Innovations:

Participation on campus-wide and divisional committees, including
active involvement in the following: CTL, the Completion by Design
Team, the 2007 levy campaign, the Center for Teaching and
Learning Advisory Board, the International Education Committee,
DECA, the Holocaust Awareness Committee, United Way
coordination and volunteer work, Q2S teams, Achieving the Dream,
AQIP, Urban African American Mentoring program, Faculty
Resource Committee, Academic Policies Committee, Innovations
League Team, CTL CAFÉ, Mid-Quarter Interviews, Faculty Forum,
Brite Signal Alliance, Learning Community Advisory Board, Adjunct
Faculty Committee, Academic Petitions Committee, Online
Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee, Faculty Senate,
Wellness Fair Committee, Innovator of the Year Committee, MiniSabbatical Committee, Fall Faculty Development Day Committee,
Division Merit Committee, General Education Committee, FRP
committee, the WritePlacer Pilot Learning Challenge Grant, and
others.

Since the 2005 Department Review, English faculty have:
o attended over 130 different conferences and workshops.
o presented at over 80 local, state, and national conferences.
o created over 30 new semester courses. In addition, our faculty
developed screenwriting and grant writing courses, which are
now used in Workforce Development.
o published over 150 books, e-books, reviews, and articles in a
wide variety of literary journals and nationally recognized online
publications and blogs.
o edited composition and literature textbooks for many publishers.
o represented Sinclair on the Ohio Board of Regents’ TAG
Literature Review boards and writing course outcome
committee.
17
2. Course Effectiveness Testimonials
Faculty representing different departments were surveyed to determine
the effectiveness of English Department courses as students progress into
their core courses for their majors.
Surinder Jain, Assistant Dean from the SME division writes, "Science,
Mathematics and Engineering division has worked very closely with the
English department over the years to provide graduates with writing skills
which are key to getting and keeping a job. Also, there are eight
engineering technology (ET) programs which are accredited by ABET
(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). It is the highest
stamp of quality very few programs receive nationwide. One of the key
ABET outcomes for all graduates is "ability to write technical reports and
communication". The English department has worked very closely with ET
program chairs to ensure that we meeting the ABET outcomes. During the
most recent accreditation visit in Fall 2010, English faculty provided
syllabi, course materials and examples of student work as exhibits,
collected over two quarters. Needless to say, all eight programs received
the maximum accreditation, which would not have been possible without
such great teaching as well as support from the English department."
Brad West from BIS in the Business division writes, “Students who have
taken English, and English 112 in particular, are clearly prepared to write
research papers. We teach a unit on formatting, citations, and
bibliographies in the MLA style for Word, and I always poll the class to see
who has taken English 112 at the start of the material. The level of
comprehension and competence of those students who have taken
English 112 is clearly superior to those who haven’t. They approach the
unit with a level of confidence and understanding that is lacking in the
other students, and are far more successful with the material. I’m sure this
is a result of their English 112 experience and the appreciation of the
importance of the tools that they learned there.”
Mary Wells from the Psychology Department writes, “Students who have
completed English 111/ 112 are typically well-prepared for the written
assignments in General Psychology classes. Because the only
prerequisite for the course is that students have tested into the highest
level of developmental reading, many students have not taken English
courses before enrolling General Psychology. I routinely discuss poor
writing skills with students and inquire as to whether they have completed
English 111 and 112. It is very common for my students with the poorest
writing abilities to report that they have not yet completed English 111 or
112. In contrast, students who have completed English courses rarely
require intervention on my part or referrals to the writing center improve
their abilities. They begin the class with the necessary writing skills to be
successful in General Psychology.”
18
3. English Department Faculty
Jack Bennett, M.A.: Department Chair since 2005; Adjunct Faculty
Coordinator. Instrumental in the successful entrance of 16 new faculty
members as Coordinator and Chairperson of the Grow Our Own Committee
since 2005. Teaches composition and history courses.
Kay Berg, M.F.A.: Semester Conversion Team Leader; Honors
Council; Department Activities Coordinator. Teaches composition,
literature, and advanced composition; teaches memoir writing for
College for Lifelong Learning; tutors Dayton Public School students.
Susan Callender, M.A.: Former Faculty Senate Secretary; SCC
Wellness Fair Committee member; College-wide FPR Revision Team
member; Textbook Committee, Semester Conversion Team Member.
Teaches composition courses.
Adrienne Cassel, M.F.A, Ph.D.: Ohio Association of Two Year
Colleges Curriculum Design Winner (2009); CTL CAFÉ Coordinator;
SOCHE Greening the Curriculum Workshop Coordinator; ENG 112
Online Coordinator. Teaches composition courses.
Liz Christensen, M.A.: ENG 132 Online Coordinator; Online Teaching
and Learning Committee. Teaches business writing courses.
Lisa Cook, M.A.: Curriculum development for DEV 297/ENG 111
accelerated writing course. Teaches composition courses.
Nicki Cosby. M.A. student at Miami University. Member of the
Sinclair-Courseview Retention team; faculty leadership advisor.
Teaches composition courses.
Jamey Dunham, M.F.A.: Published two books of poetry and multiple
anthology entries; awarded the Crashaw Prize for Poetry (2008);
Grand Prize St. Louis Poetry Center’s 46th Annual Best Poem.
Teaches composition, literature, and creative writing courses.
Chuck Freeland, M.F.A.: Ask an English Professor Coordinator;
Assessment Committee member; awarded the Ohio Arts Council
Excellence Award in Poetry (2008, 2010); published various books of
poetry. Teaches composition and creative writing courses.
Kate Geiselman, M.A.: Founder 3six5 Sinclair. Textbook Committee;
Online Teaching & Learning Advisory; ENG 111 Online Coordinator;
Winner Dayton Daily News Short Story (2010); Academic Policies
Committee. Teaches composition and creative writing courses.
Furaha Henry-Jones, M.A.: Editor of Musings, Department
19
Newsletter. Teaches composition and literature courses.
Sarah Kiewitz, M.A.: Semester Conversion Team; ReVision of ENG
1101 team; Accuplacer Liaison; English 113 Online Coordinator.
Teaches composition, textual editing, linguistics, and literature
courses.
Sally Lahmon, M.A.: OBOR Literature TAG Review Board;
Coordinator of ENG 111 Online; Academic Petitions Committee; Q2S
Calendar and Advising Committees; Semester Conversion Teaching
Syllabus Committee. Teaches composition and children’s literature.
Dean Leonard, M.A.: Actively works to bridge DEV 110 and ENG 111.
Shares classroom strategies with colleagues and adopts new,
effective teaching methods. Teaches composition and literature
courses.
William Loudermilk, M.A.: Summer Writing Center Coordinator and
assistant Writing Center Coordinator during academic year; Codirector of the Call and Response Guest Writer's Series. Teaches
composition and literature courses.
Lisa Mahle-Grisez, M.A.: Completion by Design Core Team; AQIP
Writing Success Team; ReVisioning ENG 1101 team; CTL Track
Developer/Presenter; Semester Conversion Team; WPA Success
Team. Teaches composition, text editing, and linguistics.
Rebecca Morean, M.A.: WAC inter-departmental Liaison; novelist;
Developer of Grant Writing Course for Workforce Development;
President of Antioch Writer’s Workshop. Teaches composition,
literature, and creative writing courses.
Aaron Moyer, Ed.M.: Semester Conversion Teaching Syllabus Team;
SLO assessment; ReVisioning 1101 team member; Retention
Strategies; Learning Communities. Teaches composition and
business writing courses.
Kristina Onder, M.A.: Writing Center Director; Writing Workshop
Coordinator; coordinates various Service Learning projects. Increases
student retention through individualized remediation and instruction.
Teaches composition courses.
Caroline Reynolds, M.A.: ReVisioning 1101 team member; Teaching
Merit Committee; Semester Conversion Teaching Syllabus Team;
WritePlacer Pilot team member. Teaches composition and literature
courses.
20
Vicki Stalbird, M.F.A.: Dayton Literary Peace Prize; Miami Valley Big
Read. ENG 131 Online Coordinator. Teaches composition and
business writing with a focus on literacy and global awareness.
Lisa Tyler, M.A., Ph.D.: National Endowment for the Humanities
summer seminar participant, “Modernist Paris.” Author of various
scholarly texts. Teaches literature and composition courses.
Tim Waggoner, M.F.A.: Coordinator of Creative Activities; widely
published horror and fantasy novelist; founding member of Dayton
Literary Guild. Teaches composition and creative writing courses.
Adam Williams, M.A.: Our newest department member. Brings fresh
ideas and perspective to our department. Teaches composition
courses.
Leigh Witherell, M.A.: Adjunct Faculty of the Year for Courseview for
2009/10; developing Creative Writing Institute for Courseview 2012.
Teaches composition courses.
21
4. Former or current students who have been awarded recognition of
some kind.
This is a difficult question for departments like ours; however, we have
had many students tell us that they’ve won full scholarships to four-year
universities and that the composition series is what got them there. Some
specific success stories include the following:
Jeff Gerken: former PTK president and named one of USA Today’s Top
20 Community College Students in the country. In his speech to the
faculty and at other events, Jeff cited his experience learning to write in
Geiselman’s Eng 111 and 112 classes, as well as her help with his
application process, as being partly responsible for his success.
Joseph Craig, Simon Workman, and Teri Barker: former students who are
now English department teaching assistants at local universities.
Tina Onder’s student applied for the AmeriCorp program, after she
discovered a passion for community service after taking my class, which
was centered on Service Learning. She was accepted into the program
and served as a teacher in inner-city Boston.
Mindee Arnett: former fiction writing student who has gone on to become a
published novelist in the young adult field.
Constantine Pantazonis: former poetry student who has gone on to
become a published poet.
Jim Brooks: former poetry student who has gone on to become a
published poet.
Archy Wiseman: former freelance writing student who has gone on to
become a published author of humor essays.
Sarah Bickel: former fiction writing student who was accepted into the
prestigious and highly competitive Odyssey Writing Workshop.
Our department honors student writing at our annual department award
banquet. Winners represent the best writers produced by courses in our
department and excellence in writing in our community. In addition, the
following Sinclair students are prestigious National Winners of the
League for Innovation Student Literary Competition:

2005-2006 Honorable mention was given to Archy E. Wiseman for
his short story titled “El Corazon De Leo.”
22

2005-2006 Honorable mention was given to Sheila Filler for her
essay titled “Jackie.”

2006-2007 Honorable mention was given to Amber Bromer for her
poem titled “Maps.”

2007-2008 Honorable mention was given to Nozipo Glenn for an
essay titled “Black Pot.”
Local Winners for the League for Innovation Student Literary
Competition include the following:
2007
 Essay: Sheila Filler, “Grant”

Short Story: James Combs, “This Too”

Poem: Shauna Grooms, “The Face of You”
2008
 Essay: Joseph F. Pickney, “Thumbs Up”

Short Story: Dennis L.Hitzeman, “Actions and Consequences”

Poem: Amber Bromer, “Maps”
2009
 Poetry: Christine Avery, “Sojourn”

Essay: Nozipo Glenn, “Black Pot”

Short Story: John Shurte, “Falling Man”
2010
 Nonfiction Winner: Geraldine Fogarty

Fiction Winner: Suanne Wong
2011
 Poetry Winner: James Downing, “Hazel”

Nonfiction Winner: Elaine Madden, “Union!”

Fiction Winner: Patricia Balster, “Family, Faith, Good Life.”